Appeal 3275980
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
4 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
the erection of a ground floor rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal scheme includes the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of an end of terrace 2-storey dwelling. The scale of the proposed extension would be similar to an addition to the rear of [address] whose flank wall is sited on the shared boundary with the property. By reason of the existing addition, there would be no adverse impact caused by the appeal scheme to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 189.
However, a flank wall of the proposed extension would be sited adjacent to the shared boundary with No. 193 which does not possess a rear addition. Within the rear elevation at ground floor level are a window and a glazed door which provide sunlight and daylight to, and outlook from, a combined kitchen and dining area.
There would be no reduction in the level of sunlight reaching the rear openings of No. 193 because it is sited to the south of the property. There may be some impact on the level of daylight reaching the rear openings of No. 193 but any change would not be significant and would not alone be a reason for this appeal to fail.
However, the scale, bulk and siting of the flank wall of the proposed extension would visually dominate the outlook from the rear openings of No. 193 in a similar manner to the effect of the rear addition at No. 189 on the outlook of the occupiers of the appeal property. In making this assessment the partial lowering of the ground level of the sloping garden and the existing boundary fence have been taken into account but there would be a significant detrimental impact caused to the outlook of the occupiers of No. 193 by reason of the scale, bulk and siting of the appeal scheme.
Reference has been made by the appellant to personal circumstances to support the proposed development, including future proofing the property. However, the occupiers of the property and their personal circumstances could change at a future date but the unacceptable harm caused by the appeal scheme to the occupiers of No. 193 would remain. Limited weight has been given to these personal circumstances in the determination of this appeal.
For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] and, as such, there would be a conflict with Policy DES4 of East Herts District Plan which requires development, including extensions, to avoid significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and land. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 1351No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 September 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3275980
- Application reference
- 3/21/0333/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Hertfordshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000242
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 13 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 27 May 2021
- Valid date
- 3 June 2021
- Start date
- 27 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 April 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 12 October 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 4551
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21